i think you do yourself a disservice, msc.You stick to your guns son. I've been a cock for most of my life and the casual observer doesn't realise the effort this involves. You are doing great.
i think you do yourself a disservice, msc.
i invented the tosser scale
marks out of ten...
0 = sound
1 = bit of a knob sometimes
2 = knob
3 = bit of a cock
4 = cock
5 = bit of a ****
6 = ****
7 = prick
8 = tosser
9 = complete and utter tosser
10 = wanker
11 = complete and utter wanker
i see you as being much higher than a 4
and you can take that as a compliment,
from someone who considers himself a steady 8.
Im not sure about this as a scale. I’d say a **** is worse than a tosser?i think you do yourself a disservice, msc.
i invented the tosser scale
marks out of ten...
0 = sound
1 = bit of a knob sometimes
2 = knob
3 = bit of a cock
4 = cock
5 = bit of a ****
6 = ****
7 = prick
8 = tosser
9 = complete and utter tosser
10 = wanker
11 = complete and utter wanker
i see you as being much higher than a 4
and you can take that as a compliment,
from someone who considers himself a steady 8.
prick!Im not sure about this as a scale. I’d say a **** is worse than a tosser?
Unless you are deliberately using an incorrect scale to highlight how much of a tosser you are. If so, I doff my cap sir.
Just to point out (and thanks to the poster who brought it to my attention) that I meant to say that the Fordham amounts were relatively insignificant, not 'really significant', as I typed.Good to hear Stefan.
But just for the knicker-wetters (and there seems to be a few) let's reiterate:
1. The Etihad allegations were all comprehensively covered at CAS.
I would be amazed if there was any issue with this group of charges. In fact they may be the subject of the rumours (but we don't know how true these are) that around 50 of the charges might have been dropped. The PL would need some pretty damning evidence that wasn't available to CAS to land these charges.
- Etihad paid properly for their sponsorship.
- No money came from ADUG.
- Etihad paid fair value for their sponsorship.
- Etihad got fair value for their sponsorship.
- Etihad are not a related party (and it would make no difference if they were due to the above points).
2. The Mancini allegations are a complete red-herring/crock of shit (delete as applicable). This was far more likely to be Mancini seeking a tax advantage of some sort (which isn't in itself illegal) than any attempt to disguise an expense. The numbers involved are completely insignificant given the scale of our losses at that time. Also likely to be time-barred anyway.
3. The Fordham stuff is the only one of the three substantive allegations where I initially thought that we might have been on dodgy ground. But then I thought about it and the point of these was to get revenue on the books in 2012/13, in order (as we thought back then) to meet the Annex XI transitional relief that we hoped would help us avoid punishment.
However they didn't, we negotiated a settlement, and UEFA were aware of Fordham around 2015, with the arrangement ending in 2017 or 2018. No charges were ever brought over Fordham and Der Spiegel's 'revelations' about the arrangement in 2018 were already a known quantity. Of course it's possible that the IC may take a different view but even if they do, the amounts involved are really insignificant.
Happy Chanukah to you and yours Stefan (and any other Jewish posters) and Happy Xmas to those who celebrate. There are things that worry me about City and our direction of travel, but the PL case isn't one of them.
Point of information. The related party question wasn't explicitly covered at CAS but, as I said, Etihad aren't a related party and even if they were it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
It will piss me off if we are found guilty of the Fordham stuff for example, fans of other clubs will say out trophies are void because of us getting an additional £15m when in reality that wouldn't make a difference.Just to point out (and thanks to the poster who brought it to my attention) that I meant to say that the Fordham amounts were relatively insignificant, not 'really significant', as I typed.
I’m not but you make me look good.you must be fun at parties
I would like to present Exhibit One, M'lord, Manchester United.It will piss me off if we are found guilty of the Fordham stuff for example, fans of other clubs will say out trophies are void because of us getting an additional £15m when in reality that wouldn't make a difference.
My argument will be if someone gave your club £15m a year, would that mean you win the league?
It will piss me off if we are found guilty of the Fordham stuff for example, fans of other clubs will say out trophies are void because of us getting an additional £15m when in reality that wouldn't make a difference.
My argument will be if someone gave your club £15m a year, would that mean you win the league?
So what do you mean is nonsense?Well, it seems to be worrying to you, everybody else just seems to be laughing at your nonsense.
All your comments have been addressed by what we regard as knowledgeable blue moon posters.So what do you mean is nonsense?
1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.
Still thisI'll still take winning this case over winning anything else this season but fucking Christ the decision better come quick so I can give less of a fuck about results like today
Haha, FFS - hardly academic sources or financial experts are they? Pinto is a convicted fraudster that has already been shown to manufacture 'evidence'. I imagine city's submitted accounts will be used instead of that load of tabloid fodder you are leaning on.So what do you mean is nonsense?
1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.
Like who?All your comments have been addressed by what we regard as knowledgeable blue moon posters.
We’ve read your thoughts so can you now just go home
Even in the unlikely event that there is new information, it still has to be shown that we have broken the regs in a serious way. Pinto’s first effort did not achieve that and it is highly unlikely that his second effort is more cogent. (Why would he have kept the best till last?)What concerns me about this case is that we don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC. If the latter, which is the source of this entire situation, claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities, it is worrying.
if you can’t be bothered to read the thread I can’t be bothered engaging in further exchanges with you - bye. You’re on ignore - yayyyyyyLike who?
Point 1 I am not sure your first point is correct but regardless City will know what’s going on and will have had to disclose everything both at CAS and to the Panel. We were cleared at CAS so I don’t see the issue.So what do you mean is nonsense?
1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.